This is exactly what segwit does...
On Saturday, August 06, 2016 2:15:22 PM Chris Priest via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Because the blocksize limit is denominated in bytes, miners choose > transactions to add to a block based on fee/byte ratio. This mean that > if you make a transaction with a lot of inputs, your transaction will > be very big, an you'll have a to pay a lot in fees to get that > transaction included in a block. > > For a long time I have been of the belief that it is a flaw in bitcoin > that you have to pay more to move coins that are sent to you via small > value UTXOs, compared to coins sent to you through a single high > values UTXO. There are many legitimate uses of bitcoin where you get > the money is very small increments (such as microtransactions). This > is the basis for my "Wildcard inputs" proposal now known as BIP131. > This BIP was rejected because it requires a database index, which > people thought would make bitcoin not scale, which I think is complete > malarkey, but it is what it is. It has recently occurred to me a way > to achieve the same effect without needing the database index. > > If the blocksize limit was denominated in outputs, miners would choose > transactions based on maximum fee per output. This would essentially > make it free to include an input to a transaction. > > If the blocksize limit were removed and replaced with a "block output > limit", it would have multiple positive effects. First off, like I > said earlier, it would incentivize microtransactions. Secondly it > would serve to decrease the UTXO set. As I described in the text of > BIP131, as blocks fill up and fees rise, there is a "minimum > profitability to include an input to a transaction" which increases. > At the time I wrote BIP131, it was something like 2 cents: Any UTXO > worth less than 2 cents was not economical to add to a transaction, > and therefore likely to never be spent (unless blocks get bigger and > fee's drop). This contributes to the "UTXO bloat problem" which a lot > of people talk about being a big problem. > > If the blocksize limit is to be changed to a block output limit, the > number the limit is set to should be roughly the amount of outputs > that are found in 1MB blocks today. This way, the change should be > considered non-controversial. I think its silly that some people think > its a good thing to keep usage restricted, but again, it is what it > is. > > Blocks can be bigger than 1MB, but the extra data in the block will > not result in more people using bitcoin, but rather existing users > spending inputs to decrease the UTXO set. > > It would also bring about data that can be used to determine how to > scale bitcoin in the future. For instance, we have *no idea* how the > network will handle blocks bigger than 1MB, simply because the network > has never seen blocks bigger than 1MB. People have set up private > networks for testing bigger blocks, but thats not quite the same as > 1MB+ blocks on the actual live network. This change will allow us to > see what actually happens when bigger blocks gets published. > > Why is this change a bad idea? > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
